Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-11747 No. 6189
05-27-2015
STATE OF ALASKA, Appellant, v. MICHAEL ALAN RUZICKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Samuel D. Scott, Assistant District Attorney, Kenai, and Michael C. Geraghty, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellant. Stephanie Patel, Law Office of Stephanie Patel, Anchorage, for the Appellee.
NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authority for any proposition of law. Trial Court No. 3KN-12-1150 CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Kenai, Sharon Illsley, Judge. Appearances: Samuel D. Scott, Assistant District Attorney, Kenai, and Michael C. Geraghty, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellant. Stephanie Patel, Law Office of Stephanie Patel, Anchorage, for the Appellee. Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, and Allard and Kossler, Judges. Judge ALLARD.
During a traffic stop, a Kenai police officer searched Michael Alan Ruzicka and discovered marijuana in his pocket. District Court Judge Sharon Illsley ruled that the search was illegal and suppressed the evidence. The State appeals that decision. For the reasons explained below, we reverse the decision of the district court.
Facts and prior proceedings
On July 19, 2012, at about 4:00 a.m., Kenai Police Officer Casey Hershberger was driving on the Sterling Highway when he spotted a vehicle with a license plate that was difficult to read because it was obscured by a plastic cover. Hershberger initiated a traffic stop and contacted the driver, Michael Ruzicka. After he asked Ruzicka for his license and registration, Hershberger noticed that there was a partially covered handgun on the front passenger seat within Ruzicka's easy reach. Officer Hershberger asked Ruzicka to step out of the car, and the officer conducted a pat-down frisk for weapons.
See AS 28.10.171(b) ("Every registration plate issued under this chapter shall be ... maintained in a location and condition so as to be clearly legible.").
During the frisk, Hershberger felt what he believed to be marijuana buds in Ruzicka's pants pocket. He asked Ruzicka if he could reach into the pocket, and Ruzicka said he would rather the officer did not.
Hershberger then asked Ruzicka if it was marijuana in his pocket, and Ruzicka said "possibly." When Hershberger asked if the marijuana was for personal use, Ruzicka said it was. Ruzicka then admitted to smoking marijuana and consuming beer earlier that morning. According to Hershberger, Ruzicka had a slight odor of alcohol on his breath.
Based on Ruzicka's admissions of recent drug and alcohol use and the slight odor of alcohol on his breath, Hershberger administered field sobriety tests.
After administering the field sobriety tests, Hershberger concluded that Ruzicka was not under the influence. He told Ruzicka he was not going to arrest him for DUI, but he asked him to consent to a search of his person. He gave Ruzicka two options: he could consent to the search or he could wait while Hershberger requested a warrant. Ruzicka agreed to the search and Hershberger found marijuana. Based on this evidence, Ruzicka was charged with sixth-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance.
AS 11.71.060(a)(2).
Ruzicka moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the marijuana was discovered in an illegal search. In its order granting the motion, the district court upheld the validity of the traffic stop and the scope of the pat-down for weapons, but the court concluded that the later search of Ruzicka's pocket was unlawful and beyond the permissible scope of the traffic stop. The court ruled that once the officer established that Ruzicka had no weapons on his person, and that Ruzicka was not impaired, the traffic stop was completed, and the officer had no lawful basis for extending the investigative stop past the field sobriety tests.
The State moved for reconsideration, arguing that the court's ruling was inconsistent with our decision in McGuire v. State. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration.
70 P.3d 1114 (Alaska App. 2003).
The State appeals.
Why we reverse the district court and remand this case for further proceedings
In McGuire, a police officer was conducting a lawful weapons pat-down of the defendant when he felt what he believed was a plastic baggie filled with bindles. The officer asked McGuire what he had in his pocket, and McGuire responded that it was "his marijuana." The officer then removed the baggie and field-tested the bindles, which tested positive for cocaine.
Id. at 1115.
Id.
Id.
This Court upheld the search as a valid search incident to arrest because it concluded that McGuire's admission that he had drugs gave the officer probable cause to arrest him for possession of drugs (even though the drugs McGuire admitted to possessing were different than the drugs found).
Id. at 1116-17.
Here, as in McGuire, Ruzicka admitted to possessing drugs in the officer's presence, thus giving Officer Hershberger probable cause to arrest Ruzicka and to conduct a valid search incident to arrest.
We note that Ruzicka has not challenged the validity of the stop or the scope of the weapons pat-down in this appeal. We therefore assume, for purposes of this appeal, that Ruzicka's admissions are not themselves fruits of an illegal search or seizure. Accordingly, we conclude that, based on Ruzicka's admissions, the officer was entitled to search Ruzicka's pocket even after the field sobriety tests were complete.
Cf. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 378 (1993) (discussing the "strictly circumscribed" nature of a weapons pat-down search).
--------
Conclusion
The district court's decision granting Ruzicka's motion to suppress is REVERSED and this case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.